Appiah, Angels and Applications

Question: How does Appiah’s model fit the work of public relations?

One of the continuing themes in Appiah’s book, Cosmopolitanism, is that of cultural differences, which again makes me think of my relationship with my old teacher, Swiftdeer. We could not have been more different, and yet we always found common ground in our respective customs. One time, I had the good fortune of witnessing and being in a naming ceremony. It was a great honor and I kept some special mementoes from that extraordinary experience.

Flash forward several years. My new husband and I were moving into our first home together, and he noticed these small, unusual looking items. My husband, who had been raised by rather strict Catholic parents, always laughingly referred to himself as a “smorgasbord Catholic.” As one would choose the most palatable food from a buffet or smorgasbord, he chose those practices of Catholicism that sustained and strengthened him and passed by those that did not. Nevertheless, he was a somewhat conservative guy in his spiritual views, and he looked at these wildish looking little mementoes with an expression much like one would have for a cobra that was loose in one’s living room.

I explained to him what they were and that they were as benign and no less meaningful as the small gold saints medals that he had received as a youth from his favorite uncle and now had tucked in some boxes. His expression remained unchanged, so I continued. I told him that, as I saw it, there are many paths to God, and the paths may be different, but in the end, they all lead to the same place, and regardless of whether one refers to it as “God,” “a creative life force,” “Allah,” “Buddha,” “Great Spirit” or whatever, it doesn’t really matter because it’s all God. Yes, he said, but he still wasn’t sure if he was comfortable having these things in our house.

I then further explained to my husband that perhaps he may have always envisioned angels as having wings, golden hair and long white flowing robes, but that some people like Swiftdeer envisioned angels as sometimes having fur and bushy tails but they were no less benevolent guiding forces than the ones with halos and harps. My husband paused, considering this, and then said, “Oh. That makes sense. I guess I just never thought of it like that.”

Appiah states that “the great lesson of anthropology is that when the stranger is no longer imaginary, but real and present, sharing a human social life, you may like or dislike him, you may agree or disagree, but if it is what you both want, you can make sense of each other in the end.”

This “making sense of each other” is essential in public relations, and when dealing with the various parties or audiences, sometimes we have to begin at the most basic level – learning each other’s language and discovering and understanding the meaning and value we attach to certain words in that language, as exemplified above with the word “angel.”

When I had begun speaking with him about their different perceptions of angels, I did not expect my husband to agree with or adopt Swiftdeer’s beliefs and practices. As Appiah states in one of his most important ideas on cosmopolitanism, “Conversation doesn’t have to lead to consensus about anything, especially not values. It’s enough that it helps people get use to one another.”

In public relations, we have to strive to reach that ideal win-win for all parties involved. And sometimes things may not go our way, but we can at least learn something from each other. If we discount the perceptions of others and lose sight of their interests and values and always apply what Appiah calls “cultural patrimony” and “property fundamentalism” in our representation of our clients, then we, as public relations professionals, risk being coercive rather than persuasive.


In my conversation with him about angels, my husband’s worldview shifted. He realized that he did not necessarily own the “right” view. And in further discussing ownership, Appiah states that “we have been poorly served by intellectual property law when it comes to contemporary culture: software, stories, songs. All too often, laws have focused tightly on the interests of owners, often corporate owners, while the interests of consumers – of audiences, readers, viewers and listeners – drop from sight.”

This business of cultural entitlement and corporate ownership can cut both ways – all kinds of ways. An interesting example of this is the news story, “Nepal Airline Sacrifices Two Goats to Sky God in Face of Aircraft Problems.”

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,295857,00.html

The goat sacrifice is a great PR move by the airlines corporation. It serves the interests of the corporation’s Nepalese customers, who are entitled to their cultural beliefs and practices just as the corporation is entitled to address its operational problems. And I’m perfectly happy for both parties to have as many goats sacrificed as they see fit. However, before I set foot on that Boeing 757, I want my interests served too – I want to know that, in addition to the goats being sacrificed, a qualified technician has fixed the mechanical problem.